Oh no! Now the camera is completely unusable.. Damn, that's the most expensive paper-weight I have ever owned..

And yes, I will continue to be a bastard as long as people keeping posting useless cr@p....

Are you seriously buying a camera to place it in a test-bench and run all possible and impossible tests just to find something wrong???

I've shot a few thousand real world shots and haven't come across anything problematic at all. I also had my 1d4's 0 ev set to a third of a stop higher, because I like a bit of head room and the old saying "expose to the right"

That can't be set on the 5d so I am considering jumping off a bridge because I can't look at the cursor placed under the +1 number anymore!!!

Has anyone noticed that their 5D MK3 isnt as sensitive as it perhaps should be?Everytime I shoot with it I find I am going up a whole ISO range than I would have done on my first 5DMK1

I did a little comparison, same ISO, ƒstop, speed, and same exact lens between both bodies and my 5DMK1 produced a brighter image.

Anyone else out there with this issue?

interesting because the same thing is happenig with video. for instance take a D800 set it to 1/50shutter speed and ISO400 at f/2.8. do the same scene with the canon. The D800 footage will look a LOT brighter for the same exact settings. One could attribute it to the lens f/stop roudning, but I've seen the same phenomenon repeated with other lenses. It can't be a coincidence. My conspiracy theory is that canon is overstating ISO to look good on paper. I'm sure the truth will come out as more and more people test it and if an OEM is playing tricks, there will be a s**t brewing.

Has anyone noticed that their 5D MK3 isnt as sensitive as it perhaps should be?Everytime I shoot with it I find I am going up a whole ISO range than I would have done on my first 5DMK1

I did a little comparison, same ISO, ƒstop, speed, and same exact lens between both bodies and my 5DMK1 produced a brighter image.

Anyone else out there with this issue?

interesting because the same thing is happenig with video. for instance take a D800 set it to 1/50shutter speed and ISO400 at f/2.8. do the same scene with the canon. The D800 footage will look a LOT brighter for the same exact settings. One could attribute it to the lens f/stop roudning, but I've seen the same phenomenon repeated with other lenses. It can't be a coincidence. My conspiracy theory is that canon is overstating ISO to look good on paper. I'm sure the truth will come out as more and more people test it and if an OEM is playing tricks, there will be a s**t brewing.

something must be wrong with your camera, because i posted the exact opposite a few weeks ago, i had d800 on my set and a MK3 and we did tests and i was surprised by how much darker the nikon was then the canon, i had to decrease the shutter on the nikon more then half to get the stop i was getting with the canon.maybe you are on a not very well lit set or something. i was on green screen with 4 20ks and my canon was iso 640 f4 shutter 500, and i to get the same brightness out of the nikon d800 i had to be at a shutter speed of 160 to get it to be at the same exposure. so either i have a super camera or yours is having an issue. according to other posts i see, i think its the latter

Do a simple test. Put camera in AV mode, meter mode-spot. Find a white wall or paper which is evenly lit. Fill the frame with the wall or paper. Take a photo. Look at histogram and camera settings. The histogram peek should be perfectly in center. I had 5d2 and it underexposed by 2/3 EV. Ridiculous. I was used to Nikon gear and such a simple test always gave me a histogram peek in center (internal light meter gave setting identical to Sekonic). My Canon's 5d2 histogram peek was 2/3 EV off center.

My mkII and mkIII histograms for identical shots are almost identical. I have also noticed with this test mkIII's AWB is also more accurate. But I guess that is to be expected.

In post with all things were equal the MkII looked a little brighter in center and the histogram of the mkII was slightly more spread to the right, but spiked similarly, which I'm likening to dynamic range since the mkII filled in blacks and pushed whites more (see below). Both files were raw imported to Aperture so no lens corrections were on in either.

While I was there I pushed the shadow levels and brightness to the limits and noticed the 5DIII has substantially more DR and much better noise control. Both these are ISO 400 and pushed equally. I'm impressed. the mkIII may not be the 800 in DR but I'm happy.

Disregard the fact the files say they are both from mkIII, that is the way I cropped them in the same PS file together.